A central question the court has to decide is whether there was a contract governing the services of Mr Sharpe as a clergyman, and – if there was one – what was its nature.

The CoE contended at a recent hearing that if there was a contract, its nature was not “employment.”

Thomas Linden QC, for the Church, argued: “Something more than an appointment to office is needed if a contract is to be established.

“Clearly Parliament intended that those who were appointed as (church) benefice holders should be subjected to the ecclesiastical law framework.

“It would be surprising if at the same time Parliament intended that there was another result, namely that they gained employment rights enforceable by employment tribunals and the county court, and so on.”

Mr Sharpe moved to Hanley Broadheath, near Worcester, with his wife and four children in 2005, but stepped down in September 2009 saying he had developed health problems as a result of a campaign of harassment.

His constructive unfair dismissal claim is based on the argument that the Church should have warned him of the nature of the parish and its problems and offered him better support and protection when the harassment began.

Sally Kosky, Unite national officer, said: “It is deeply disappointing that the Church of England has gone to such lengths to avoid its responsibility as an employer.

“It cannot be that on the one hand the church takes huge strides forward on gender equality, yet on the other remains in the dark ages on fundamental employment rights.

“There is much at stake here, not only for Mark, but many other faith workers who are unable to seek justice for unfair treatment.”

John Bowers QC, appearing for Mr Sharpe, said part of the vicar’s case involved a claim for compensation under the “whistle-blowing” provisions of employment law.

The claim arises from Mr Sharpe’s assertions that he received no help or assistance when he reported people who were harassing him.

Mr Bowers told the judges the only way Mr Sharpe could claim compensation of any kind was through the employment tribunal.